This judgment confirms that an intermediary who suffers the economic burden of an unlawful charge, after being sued by his customers for it, cannot be left without a repayment remedy against the state.

This follows the same line of reasoning as the Advocate-General Kokott’s opinion in Danfoss, where the customer sought to reclaim unlawful tax directly from the state, in circumstances where the supplier who paid the unlawful tax was insolvent. AG Kokott reached the conclusion in Danfoss that the customer must also have a repayment remedy made available to it.